Shrout, Winston

[notorial dissent]

Unless I have misread this it is more a tribute to BOP's general ineptitude than anything else. They were supposed to have set him up with a specific type of accommodation, geriatric as I recall, and had a timeline to get it done, and didn't, leaving the judge with not much option but to grant the extension earlier denied until BOP get their act together. So no great conspiracy or great revelation, no silver bullet, just bureaucracy in inaction.

[jonny sunday]

And Winston is still not in jail, but yall are still self proclaimed legal experts.

[NYGman]

And Winston is still not in jail, but yall are still self proclaimed legal experts.

I think the only way he is getting out of this, is to die, before he is committed, which is always a possibility. It still doesn't mean he has won. Unless you are willing to Die rather than face a jail term, you would be best advised not to follow Winston and his view on taxes. Death isn't a great plan B when it does fail.

[Mr. Smith]

Nope, he's not in prison, yet. But he is finally in the BOP system. Doncha worry, though. He'll be having to self-surrender before long, unless he croaks first.

WINSTON SHROUT
Register Number: 78952-065
Age:
70
Race:
White
Sex:
Male
NOT IN BOP CUSTODY
Release Date: UNKNOWN

[Famspear]

And Winston is still not in jail, but yall are still self proclaimed legal experts.

Winston is still not in jail, and as far as I can tell, it is still the case that none of the regulars here has proclaimed himself to be a legal expert.

You've been saying that over and over. You're obsessed with this false idea that we are "self-proclaimed" legal experts. You keep saying it, over and over.

Think about what that means, jonny.

[Pottapaug1938]

And Winston is still not in jail, but yall are still self proclaimed legal experts.

Winston is still not in jail, and as far as I can tell, it is still the case that none of the regulars here has proclaimed himself to be a legal expert.

You've been saying that over and over. You're obsessed with this false idea that we are "self-proclaimed" legal experts. You keep saying it, over and over.

Think about what that means, jonny.

It's also worthwhile to remember that many of the regulars here are lawyers, either retired or still in practice, and with extensive experience in the field of law. I'll bet that you can't say the same, jonny.

[NYGman]

It's also worthwhile to remember that many of the regulars here are lawyers, either retired or still in practice, and with extensive experience in the field of law. I'll bet that you can't say the same, jonny.

I think you may be forgetting, some of these Guru's are Judges in their own courts, Common Law or Equity Lawyers, self proclaimed Legal Scholars, and people that read a lot of what's on the internet. All high authorities in their own right. How dare you dismiss them.

[wserra]

Shrout finally filed his motion for bail pending appeal. There are basically three factors in the decision to award it or not:

• (1) Likelihood of flight or danger to the community. We can, at least for the sake of argument, give Shrout that one.
  
  (2) Appeal for the purpose of delay. Since he appeals a jury trial, conviction and sentence, we can give Shrout that one too.
  
  (3) Substantial questions of law or fact. Well, I don't see those, but maybe that's just me. Let's see what Shrout and his lawyer came up with.

Their first point: "Denial of Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Vindictive Prosecution Without Discovery or an Evidentiary Hearing". Remember: the govt superseded a misdemeanor indictment with a felony indictment. Yeah, so? Not that unusual. What was so vindictive about it? Shrout cites a convoluted series of events, which include a govt admission that at one point it got some facts wrong. Not facts about Shrout, but facts about why it superseded. But so what? Why was Shrout, in the govt's eyes, Public Enemy #1, on whose ass it wanted to get all vindictive? No coherent explanation for that given, so it's hard to see the Ninth Circuit ruling that the trial court should have held a hearing on it.

Second: Faretta violation - not that the trial court didn't allow Shrout to go pro se, but that it shouldn't have. Related point: the trial court should have held a competency hearing. Why? Because Shrout is an obvious wacko. If he wasn't, any error along those lines would be clearly harmless - so he must be. One wonders if Shrout saw what his stand-by lawyer wrote.

Third: various Guideline sentencing errors, all quite technical. Even if Shrout wins on these - dubious at best - the remedy is to remand for resentence, not to let Shrout go.

Conclusion: Shrout should keep his toothbrush packed.

[Cpt Banjo]

I think you may be forgetting, some of these Guru's are Judges in their own courts, Common Law or Equity Lawyers, self proclaimed Legal Scholars, and people that read a lot of what's on the internet. All high authorities in their own right. How dare you dismiss them.

What's more, they have access to a 19th century legal dictionary. What more do they need to be experts? Well, maybe brains...

[NYGman]

It's a shame Jonny Sunday doesn't get it. Let me try an example that may help him realize that serving the court is important part of being a lawyer and that he and everyone else wants it that way.

There is a lot of ethics in play here but let me try a simple example. If I served my client first, you may be in a position to be dishonest to the court of your oponent and not permit a fair trial. Sure a trial would happen, but now let's reverse it. if let's say a DA decided not to turn over exculpiroty evidence as it would lose the government case, is that a good situation for anyone. This shouldn't happen when the court comes first. A DA has a duty to the court,and to turn over this information. So while you may be all about putting your client first doing anything and saying anything to win, I am sure if faced against a DA you would want them to serve the court first. Also a lawyer serving his clients interests first just flies in the face of fairness. With all lawyers swearing an oath to the court you have a level playing field, where the facts can come out and a proper judgement or rullling can happen.

[Gannibal]

Shrout's motion to continue release has been denied, and the court has ordered him to surrender himself at FCI Sheridan by January 7 at 2 p.m.

[Famspear]

Shrout's motion to continue release has been denied, and the court has ordered him to surrender himself at FCI Sheridan by January 7 at 2 p.m.

Dang! I hate it when this happens!

At least the Court gave him time to celebrate Christmas and New Year and buy a new toothbrush.....

[ArthurWankspittle]

Shrout's motion to continue release has been denied, and the court has ordered him to surrender himself at FCI Sheridan by January 7 at 2 p.m.

Dang! I hate it when this happens!

At least the Court gave him time to celebrate Christmas and New Year and buy a new toothbrush.....

His Christmas present list is going to be a hoot to read.

[wserra]

While we wait to see whether norrha is capable of modifying his behavior to cease emulating a third-grade jerk, I've split his nonsense here.

[wserra]

Shrout has appealed the DC's denial of release pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit per FRAP 9, which also requires the Circuit to decide that application "promptly". The Rule doesn't define "promptly". Until that decision, the order directing Shrout to surrender is stayed.

[Famspear]

Shrout has appealed the DC's denial of release pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit per FRAP 9, which also requires the Circuit to decide that application "promptly". The Rule doesn't define "promptly". Until that decision, the order directing Shrout to surrender is stayed.

It is obvious to me that Winston is really, really trying hard to get out of having to cough up the big bucks to buy that new toothbrush.

[morrand]

Shrout's motion for relief is posted here—RECAP apparently doesn't get along with appellate cases. Summarizing:

• He's a harmless old man and has been out on bail successfully before, so why not again?
• None of the fictitious instruments caused any loss and they were unbelievable anyway (the term "Monopoly money" comes up). Therefore, he should only have been sentenced on the tax losses of about $157k. The government failed to prove otherwise to the proper standard.
• Mr. Shrout was not competent to represent himself. Among other things, he told the court that he did not understand the charges or the potential penalties, and this ultimately invalidated his Faretta waiver. Instead, the court should have referred him for competency hearing prior to trial. He may have a point there: he quotes the district judge as saying, "You’re
  not competent to represent yourself, but you have a right to do that," just before finding him competent to conduct his own defense.
• Contrary to the court's finding, sophisticated means were not used to commit the crimes of which he was convicted, therefore the sophisticated means sentence enhancement should be vacated.
• The fictitious instrument counts were a case of vindictive prosecution. This one is a little hard to follow, but Mr. Shrout seems to argue that, since the prosecutor held off filing the fictitious instrument charges until late, they must have been filed for a vindictive purpose.

The government's response is a terse 19 pages, responding, in order, that:

• He's been pulling this sh*t (my term, not the government's) for 10 years and has indirectly sent many people to jail for it while making a good living from it. And although he's not a danger to the community, he hasn't explained how he's not just trying to delay going to jail.
• Not only is Mr. Shrout quoting the wrong standard, but even if he's right, it wouldn't reduce his sentence enough to keep him entirely out of prison after he won the appeal; therefore, no bail.
• Mr. Shrout only turned incompetent after the trial was over; during trial, there wasn't much doubt of it, and his sovcit hijinks (like "not understanding" the charges) don't change that. The competency hearing after trial confirmed it. The government gives more context to the quote above, saying that it came in the midst of the court explaining why self-representation in general is a bad idea, rather than as an evaluation of Mr. Shrout's own competency.
• The sophisticated means argument falls for the same reason as the wrong-standard argument: even if it was wrong, he'd still be in prison after winning the appeal.
• The prosecution wasn't vindictive: the additional charges came out of a long-term investigation, and as the court found, it's unlikely that the prosecution would seek revenge on a defendant either for acting pro se or for making routine pre-trial motions.

[notorial dissent]

Isn't that pretty much the same twaddle he tried at court? Worked so well the first time. I don't see that it is so much he is a "threat/danger" to the community so much as that he will continue running his cons, just as he did while he was at trial. So, NO, he won't cease the bad behavior and really should go to jail.

[wserra]

Since jonny can't post without without brainless gloating, name-calling, making baseless claims or repeating himself - or all of the above - he is now moderated.

ETA: And his most recent posts - last month or so - moved to "jonny sunday's pearls of wisdom" to avoid cluttering up the Shrout thread with babble.

[Dark Optimist]

wserra - thank you for that. I was starting to get a sympathy headache from Johnny's beating their head against the wall.